River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1887-12-22
Circuit Court Proceedings.
ELLswoRrH, Dec. u. 1881.


j. @. Lewis VS. Oliver l.. Pickett et
al. An action for foreclosure, from
Eau Claire county. FoI eclosure gran.
ted. L. f. Frawley, attorney for
plaintiff.
Anna b. Erickson VS.. Lars Erickson.
Action for divorce, from Eau Claire
county. Divorce granted. I. F.
Frawley, attorney for plaintiff.
List of jurors called. The following
jurors were excused; Charles Ray,
Andrew Bennett, j. B. Johnson and
August Malin. The two latter were
excused for their inability to under.
stand the English language. [Query-
Why are the names of such men put
into the jury listl Are there not
enough good and competent men for
jurors in each town who can speak and
understand the English language!
A jury was empannelled in the case
of L. Cahill VS.. w. A. Kay. This &C.
ton was brought to recover on note
given by defendant TO plaintiff tor an
attachment for pillow, and the note
was submitted in evidence. Defend.
ant claimed that the transaction was
swindle, and that he was not of age
at the time the note was given. Yer.
dict, directed by the court, for the
defendant-nO cause of action. +. l..
Perrin for plaintiff, Smith & Vannatta
for defendant.
Upon motion of A. Combacker, Esq,
Theodore NJ. 1horson was admitted to
practice in this court.
State of Wisconsin VS.. Frank Ros.
sell. This action was for assault with
dangerous weapon on the person OF
VIM. Wells. The plaintiff failed to
convince the jury that the weapon
used was anything more dangerous
than the defendants tongue and a door
key, aud they returned a verdict OF
not guilty. A. Cook, district attorney
with Smith & Vannatta, for plaintiff;
+. l.. Perrin, and j. 5. & +. M. White,
for defendant.
Nolles were entered by Dist, Att y
Cook in the following cases: State VS..
Phillip Fitzpatrick, State VS.. Abel
Olson, and State VS.. Peter Johnson.
The other criminal cases ON the calen-
dar were not moved.
j. ii. Allen ct al. VS.. W. W. Thayer.
This action was brought to recover
on three certain notes amounting to
about $1,000, given by defendant to
the plaintiff, Allen, More & Co., fol
the Indebtedness of Thayer & Mason
to the plaintiffs for goods purchased
of them. 1t appeared that defendant,
Thayer, had sold his interest in the
goods of Thayer & Mason to his part
ner, Mason, and taken a chattel mort.
gage on the goods sold. The mortgage
Was turned over to plaintiffs to secure
the notes i'll question. The goods
mortgaged by Mason were subse-
quently taken on the mortgage and
placed in The hands of receiver to be
sold and the proceeds TO be applied to
the payment of the notes in question,
as claimed by the defendant. The
plaintiffs produced in evidence a con.
tract by which plaintiffs claimed, the
defendant agreed or aSSented 1.-THE con
tract was not signed by defendanU to
the application of the proceeds of the
sale of the goods to the payment OF
certain debts contracted by SAID Mason
with Allen, More IS Co. subsequent to
the transfer of defendants interest
in the goods to his partner, Mason
Defendant denied any knowledge OF
the contract and testified til At he never
saw it till it was produced ON this
trial. 1t was also claimed by defend.
ant that the property covered by the
chattel mortgage was sufficient to pay
the amount due plaintiffs, except about
$ll8.20. The case was ably argued by
counsel to the jury. The jury re-
turned verdict for plaintiffs for
$lI8.20. f. l.. Perrin for plaintiffs.
Smith & Vannatta for defendant.
j, b. Hull VS.. The Phoenix ms. Co
of Hartford, Conn. This action was
brought to recover the insurance on
property burned IN Maiden Rock. The
defendant claimed the policy had ex-
PRED, and had not been renewed by
the company-in fact its renewal had
been refused and the local agent so
advised; also, that the plaintiff had
not furnished proof of loss within the
time required by the terms of the
policy. Plaintiff claimed that he left
his policy with the local agent some
time before it expired with a request
to have it renewed, and that at OF
about the time it expired he paid the
agent for the renewal; that the agent
informed him at that time that it
would be all right, and did not notify
him that it was not renewed till after
the loss; that he was informed by the
local and adjusting agents that the
Company would not pay his loss and
therefore he did not furnish the proof
of loss as required by the terms of the
policy. The case was ably managed
by counsel on both sides. The jury
after being out short time returned
verdict for plaintiff for $224.50
Smith & Vannatta and J. w. Hancock
for plaintiff; Lusk & Bum, of St.
Paul. for defendant.
Geo. O'Brien VS.. The Phoenix ms.
Co. of Hartford, Conn. The issues in
this case were nearly the same as in
the case of Hull vs.. The Pix Ins. Co.,
except that it was not denied that the
policy was in force at the time of the
loss, the Company claiming they had
evidence tending to show that plaintiff
set fire to his own house. The plain
tiff was subjected to a rigid cross.
examination and witnesses introduced
to prove that plaintiff had made some
statements as to how he could raise
money in case he was lizard up by